As a follow-up to my previous post, I have now read the decision, and it is a very strong one indeed.
All three judges agreed that the Senate is only in recess when it has adjourned sine die (Latin for “without a day,” i.e. without setting a date to meet again). This happens only at the end of the first session of a Congress when the second session will begin (as per Amendment XX, Sec. 2) on the next January 3rd, or at the end of the second session, when a newly elected Congress will assemble on that date.
After Congress has adjourned sine die, the President can only call it back into session.
Further, two of the judges ruled that in order for the President to exercise the recess appointment power, the vacancy must have come about during the recess following a sine die adjournment, not merely happen to exist during such a recess. The third judge, while expressing some sympathy for this interpretation, thought that it did not have to be reached in order to decide this case and therefore shouldn’t have been part of the decision.
Assuming this decision holds up—and it is powerfully argued—President Obama’s overreach here has had the effect of severely limiting his power to make recess appointments.
It will be far more constrained than the power such presidents as Eisenhower and George W. Bush exercised. Indeed, since Congress is now in session most of the year, unless the vacancy occurs in the month of December, after Congress has gone home for the year, he no longer has any recess appointment power.
Serves him right.
huh? NYT's Greenhouse is saying on PBS that this court decision stipulates that recess appointments can only be made once every two years, in between the old and new Congress.
it also has the added benefit of slapping him down a peg in general. will someone in this administration have the cojones to remind the president that he's not the king?
Not a chance… unfortunately.
It's about time that this administration finally gets slapped down.
What difference does it make?
If this stands, that intersession vs intrasession bit will call all of judge Pryor's rulings into question, as well. (In fact, I read there have been hundreds of these intrasession appointments…and that if they (and their fruits) remain illegal based on this ruling, there will be a whole lotta people claiming they were wrongly judged or ruled against by someone without standing to judge, which'll get awful messy.) n nI suspect that overreach alone will mean this ruling won't survive en banc / Supreme review.
I think the ruling will stand.
Well, maybe this will mean that the Democrats will go for a completely nuclear option on filibuster – 50 senators + VP
Try "a Court protests Obama caudillismo" n n"Constitution? I don't need no stinkin Constitution…"